---

Nepal

My Lords, I too would like to thank and congratulate my noble friend Lord Sandwich for keeping these critical developments in Nepal in your Lordships’ mind, and indeed in that of the Government—just in case they feel, although I am sure they will not, that with all their other serious preoccupations in the international field, what is happening in Nepal is but a small, local matter hardly worthy of a major focus in our foreign policy. Well, I strongly suggest that Nepal and what happens there is very important indeed to this country and I fully support what my noble friend said in his excellent and thoughtful speech about the Nepalese nation deserving more in the way of assistance, diplomacy and parliamentary time than it has had so far. For nearly 200 years the Nepalese people, particularly the hill people from the west and east of Nepal, have been true friends of this country, and indeed friends in our time of need. We were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the Nepalese were prepared openly, as its then ruler declared, in one of our darkest hours in 1940, to lose with us if that was what fate had in store. Happily, by instead providing an increasing number of incomparable Gurkha soldiers whenever asked, they were able to make major contributions to our ultimate victory in both world wars as well as in innumerable smaller but demanding campaigns, not least in those of the last half century; and suffering much hardship on our behalf, thus winning thousands of awards for gallantry. We therefore owe Nepal a great deal and have, to my mind, a particularly deep obligation to its people. Now an opportunity has arisen almost unexpectedly to stabilise and improve the security situation which has led to much loss of life and depressed still further the fragile economy and the tourist industry on which much of it depends, and to create for the first time a democratic society from which, incidentally, I believe the Nepalese people should, unlike some, because of their tolerance and restraint, be well able to benefit—just look at their great neighbour, India—and which, we hope, would be, and must be, less riven by the political corruption of the past. Surely we must do all we can to offer the hand of friendship. Moreover, we must offer it in a way which will help the various parties and factions—the seven-party alliance, the so-called Maoists, presumably because their military activities have been conducted along the lines of the little red book—to come to a practicable and honourable accommodation with a new constituent assembly and ultimately, a truly democratic parliament. Of course, as the noble Earl has said, there will be hiccups along the way. But I am sure that Mr Koirala’s brave step of bringing the Maoists into the centre of the constitutional negotiations—or perhaps one should say peace process—and eventually into government, must be warmly welcomed. I hope our Ministers and Foreign Office officials will not be too pedantic over the exact means and extent to which the rebels have put the armed struggle behind them. Whatever Ministers may say in public, historically we have repeatedly talked to those who, at that time, were called terrorists. Sensibly too, because it becomes sensible when both sides realise that they cannot win by military means—as the penny seems now to have dropped in Nepal—and also when the injustices, the abuse of power and the historical inequalities at which the violence has been aimed have been adopted and championed by a wider, more popular and peaceful protest movement. This has also happened in Nepal. It is of course not for one faction or another—let alone anyone outside—to dictate what the future should hold in constitutional terms for the King. This must, as been said, be a matter for the people in Nepal as a whole—perhaps by means of a referendum within the democratic system, once established.As the noble Earl suggested, it is possible that as an institution and on a purely constitutional basis, the monarchy, as accepted by the popular and respected late King Mahendra, might still remain as a unifying force for stability. But for the time being, his Majesty the present King seems to have sensibly decided to stay out of sight and do or say nothing. This is not a course I would advocate for the British Government. As the noble Earl has said, our long friendship and joint experience should enable us—without giving offence and in consultation with the Indian Government, who, one hopes, would recognise and not object to our links and who surely have a common interest in a stable Nepal—to take a positive role in assisting the process of reconciliation, in underwriting a durable ceasefire and free elections and constructing a representative government. Areas worth considering are increased aid packages to help with the key issues of poverty and resettlement, providing—if thought helpful—training, reconstruction and reform, of what would perhaps need to be something of a new model army, with some changes in its constitutional position and higher command and methods of working more in tune with the political changes and also perhaps monitoring the ceasefire. For this we would be drawing on our experience of supervising similar changes in other parts of the world. We could also help with the training of a modern civil service. If implemented, all these efforts might be embraced in the historical obligation we may feel towards Nepal and its people. But of course in all this there would sensibly, and properly, be an element of self-interest as well. The Gurkha operation in Nepal—here I declare an interest, having been colonel of a Gurkha Rifle Regiment and one-time president of the Gurkha Brigade Association—is both longstanding and most important, if not at this time vital, to the British Army, which is invariably committed to doing too much with not enough combat units and whose recruiting and retention is delicate to say the least. In recent years the Gurkhas—their engineers, signals, infantry battalions and transport—have made a central contribution in every theatre of operation. We badly need to continue to recruit Gurkhas in Nepal—an operation, to which the noble Earl has already referred and which, incidentally, has not been affected or pressurised by the violence in the hills. At this critical time, the more that we can extend the hand of friendship—in practical not patronising terms, showing that we welcome the bold initiatives being taken—the more likely we are to persuade any new Government that the Gurkha operation will continue to bring benefit to Nepal, economically and for its international standing and prestige. The Indian Government, who have a massive Gurkha operation of their own far bigger than ours, will obviously be keen to maintain theirs. A wonderful opportunity has opened up—I hope that it is not only a fleeting one—which perhaps reflects the good sense of the Nepalese people. We should do our level best to encourage it, out of not only gratitude for what their country has done for us in the past but a genuine desire to see a more forward-looking democratic state, which sees it in its interests and to its advantage to respect its historical ties with this country, and to make it possible for Gurkhas to continue to serve in the British Army, in their own units and under their own officers.